Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

thefickler writes to tell us that YouTube plans on raising revenue by allowing major media players to run their own ads on the video site for, not only their own content, but illegally uploaded content by other users. "The site says CBS is already on board for the scheme, with other giants expected to join. The scheme will allow TV, movie and music companies to upload content and then sell advertising themselves, for example through images or animations which are overlaid on suitable sections of the clips. YouTube will then take a cut of this advertising revenue."

So start your own or host your own movies. Flash has finally made it so that I can distribute stuff to people without too much hassle. Quicktime never seemed to work perfect, especially for the computer illiterate. Now I can just say "If you can use youtube, you can use my site". I use JW FLV Media Player [longtailvideo.com] to serve Rugby Songs [peoriarugby.com] and Game Films [purduerugby.com]*. I use some ffmpeg compressors to do it and in no time I have media that almost anyone can view and use.

It may also cut down on the number of people that actually post to YouTube. If any company can claim a video is copyrighted and get ads placed all over it, what steps does the author have to declare the work a 'derivative' or 'artistic representation' (in other words, fight the copyright infringement claim)?

The author probably has no rights to declare it or steps to declare it. After all, the organization is not making a copyright claim in a court of law; they are merely making it to Youtube, who can then do whatever the hell they like and if you don't like it, you can go hang.

what steps does the author have to declare the work a 'derivative' or 'artistic representation' (in other words, fight the copyright infringement claim)?

I had one of my videos, a comparison between "Take Me Out" by Franz Ferdinand and Mr. Resetti's theme from Nintendo's Animal Crossing: Wild World, trigger YouTube's audio recognition. Knowing that the sort of critical commentary in "Cryptomnesia: Animal Crossing" [youtube.com] would probably fall squarely within the bounds of fair use as described by 17 USC 107, I clicked the dispute button. I was given a choice among A. the work was misidentified, B. the use is not subject to copyright, or C. I can prove a license from

It's not Google's job to decide who is guilty and who isn't. They have to dump anything if they get a copyright complaint if they want to keep their Safe Harbor protections as per the DCMA.

Google has been experiencing much slower growth in ad revenue lately and AdSense publisher revenues are much worse [howtonotma...online.com] and are looking for new exciting revenue streams to try and get that triple digit growth rate again.

They have to dump anything if they get a copyright complaint if they want to keep their Safe Harbor protections as per the DCMA.

I know, that's why I'm waiting for a swedish Youtube-equivalent to take over.

I was complaining about the term "illegal". Doublethink at its finest.

Google has been experiencing much slower growth in ad revenue lately and AdSense publisher revenues are much worse and are looking for new exciting revenue streams to try and get that triple digit growth rate again.

MOD PARENT UP!
It's so true. He has been hung up to dry by the media because rumor and hearsay have made him look really bad. And even suggesting he may not be culpable makes one look like a crazy person.

"Problems"? The Constitution doesn't guarantee a life without problems. All it says is that he is entitled to a fair trial before the Feds throw his sorry ass in jail. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal tenet that applies to trials, not public opinion.

If McCain had won and we were talking about the governor of Arizona you all, as well as the media, would be falling all over yourselves to pin the whole thing on McCain and/or Bush. Kucinich would have already drafted impeachment papers, Pelosi would have already called for multiple congressional investigations, and slashdotters would be posting +5 Insightful comments about how republican corruption knows no bounds. But when a piece of shit Chicago Democrat is being impeached for selling a senate seat, no

I think GP may have been going for sarcasm or humor. At least I laughed my ass off.

I (a liberal Illinoisan) have to say though, that the Democratic Governor, the Dem-controlled state legislature, the Democrat appointed to the seat, and the Democratic U.S. Senate Majority Leader each deserve all the problems this scandal has given them, because they've all behaved pretty badly through the mess. And whatever political popularity Jesse White picks up from refusing to certify the appointment, well, he doesn't

YouTube has been on a spree deleting lots of videos that use songs or parts of songs by Warner Music Group. I think I could stand having a short advertisement before watching a video (but not during it) if it meant people could post these videos again.

same here. i'm sick of reading news or blog articles on sites like autoblog.com which refer to YouTube videos that have been removed.

it's especially stupid when Viacom has music videos taken down. the whole reason you make music videos is to promote an artist/song/album. if someone posts it online, they're just giving you more free publicity. you don't charge MTV for playing your music video on Headbangers Ball, so why would you complain about YouTube broadcasting a low-def version of your music video for millions of people to see?

YouTube's quickly turning into another Photobucket. cheap throwaway image hosts have long been contributing to the sea of dead images polluting online forums and message board archives. likewise, tons of dead YouTube videos can be found embedded in blog posts and even news articles these days because media corporations like Viacom are taking down YouTube uploads of news reports, music videos, TV clips, and even TV commercials.

i wouldn't even mind if such content were never posted to YouTube in the first place. at least then we wouldn't run into dead YouTube videos left and right. i just wish internet news sites and news blogs would learn to just avoid Viacom/NBC/Fox/etc.'s content. if those companies don't want the free publicity or promotion for their shows/artists, then just ignore them in your online reporting. cover indie bands or indie filmmakers. there's plenty of better quality free content out there that you know won't get taken down by the copyright holders.

i'm sick of reading news or blog articles on sites like autoblog.com which refer to YouTube videos that have been removed.

For about the past month, I have noticed that YouTube has really begun dying. Too many big players have a stranglehold on it and it has really started to suck all around. Just like you, I keep running into removed videos embedded/linked from blogs. The annoying advertising has ramped up. YouTube started playing commercials mid-video. It works by locking up the flash player and forcing a commercial to play through before it unlocks.

It might be time to pull all my videos from YouTube and stop using my acco

Indeed, in the beginning they were even called "promotional videos" if I remember correctly. I don't think they understand the idea of advertising very well. Do people ever buy video clips? It's not really the product they're selling, is it.

Today I was searching for "acceptable in the 80s" by calvin harris, found the video clip at the sony bmg channel: "This video is not available in your country" (we're talking germany here, where btw everything from the 80s is unfortunately still acceptable, but that's

The firms will also be able to take advantage of YouTube's Content ID system which attempts to identify copyrighted material which has been uploaded without permission. Firms taking part in the scheme can opt for such clips, rather than being taken offline as normal, to remain on the site but with advertising added.

So rather than youtube deleting every TV show/music video/sports clip/etc. uploaded by users that violates copyright, the company that owns the copyrights to the video can now sell ad space on the video. It's not like they're selling ad space to CBS for someone's video blog, the person doesn't legally have the right to upload a video that someone else owns, at least now the videos can stay up, but with annoying ads.

I agree. Yet it doesn't say what protections are in place for keeping CBS's ads out of clips mistakenly identified as belonging to CBS. Will companies like Lucasfilm put ads in legally allowed parodies like Chad Vader that actually have very little to do with actual Lucasfilm characters and nothing to do with their plots?

They've planning this for some time. I got an email over a month ago telling me that "Diaganol View" claimed copyright on a Reuters video I had uploaded. Part of their email said:

"As long as diaganol view has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views... [Diaganol may also] place advertisements on this video's watch page."

They also said I could dispute the claim, so mistaken videos shouldn't be too much of a problem (hopefully).

Putting ads alongside a snippet, or even clearly delineated before or after, is not the same as editing a clip to insert ads. Are you saying Google actually takes creative control of snippets of video people upload?

So, if they don't want to run an expensive ad campaign they just upload strategically crippled clips through a straw-man, "discover" them and then allow them to stay (in exchange for free advertisement they embed and a share of the advertising revenue from those clips).

So, if they don't want to run an expensive ad campaign they just upload strategically crippled clips through a straw-man, "discover" them and then allow them to stay (in exchange for free advertisement they embed and a share of the advertising revenue from those clips).

Not even close, they still have to pay for the advertising, the only difference is they don't have to go through the trouble of uploading the video if someone already did it. They would require even more work going through a third party and claiming copyright infringement than they would if they just uploaded the videos themselves, with no benefit at all. The only way it would help them if someone else uploaded the video, would be if that video had a lot of views (it's easier to sell ad space for somethin

Marketing people will stop seeing advertising as a revenue stream when people actually stop using a service because of the advertisements. Or, to put it another way: marketing people will stop seeing advertising as another revenue stream when it actually stops being a revenue stream.

What banner ads? To be honest, I have never seen a SINGLE banner ad here on slashdot, or most places for that matter.

Ad-Blocker Plus since the day I installed Firefox.

Your argument falls kinda flat, since I seriously doubt the marketers keep track(or even know) of how many people actually stop using a service because of advertising frustrations. It would go AGAINST them if they were to actually make that information available to prospective advertisers.

Your argument falls kinda flat, since I seriously doubt the marketers keep track(or even know) of how many people actually stop using a service because of advertising frustrations. It would go AGAINST them if they were to actually make that information available to prospective advertisers.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. If you're blocking the ads, they can't be bothering you, because you don't even see them, so why do you even care?

No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.

I would subscribe when they make it worth my while by adding features to the subscribe site I find value in, not when they make the free site so abominably bad that would consider paying not to use it.

Given most aren't subscribers, and most would leave if the site got that abominably bad, and the core value of the site is the people, ther

For most websites advertising is not just another revenue stream, it's their ONLY revenue stream. Servers and bandwidth cost money, and if you're doing something right, lots of money. If you're doing something right with video it's a heinous amount of money. Having a successful website doesn't qualify you for instant magic payments, you have to go earn the money somehow.

It's amazing that so many bright people who work with technology just don't get this concept (perhaps they live mainly in academia, where you do get magic payments)

The subscription revenue model died out five years ago. It didn't work. It turns out most people prefer to have their content for free and see a few ads rather than pay $30 a year for no ads. I have seen sites that went the wrong direction (ad funded to subscription only) and they either very quickly reverted or died. Traffic dropped by 90-99%, revenue by 50-75%. They can make it in some very specialised sectors (eg finance, nautical weather) but by and large it's a dud model.

Something people don't realize - the word "advertising" means to influence people to do what they do not want to do, aka are adverse to doing. It is not merely steering them towards one of several available options, that would be "divertising". It gives me a chuckle that advertisers don't use a better term to call advertising, like "promotions". They openly declare the worst aspect of their work.

Probably around the same time that all services and content becomes free to create and run with all their employees volunteering to keep it running without being paid.

What a horrible question. Do you honestly expect someone to run a service providing trillions of video streams and never take any money from it? How exactly is the bandwidth going to be paid for? How will the employees be paid?

Advertising is currently the only viable solution to this problem. If you think you have a better one, implement it an

Okay, so this sounds really smart at first: studios get some money when people watch something they have helped create, and the mashup artist gets some peace to show his stuff.

But wait... the ad would not be beside the video, but *overlaid* ????

So let me get this straight:

- knock knock, we're from the 'church' of Scientology, and we own the content to that (anti-scientology) clip. Can we overlay it with an ad for us, which lasts for the whole duration of the video, and cover the whole screen?
- Sure, I'm just an automated bot; pay me 10$ and you'll be on your way!

I would guess so. I'm guessing that is why they've been vetting their videos. First they got rid of everything sexually explicit and now they are getting rid of things that are graphic. Probably because they don't want to piss off their advertisers. One of my favorite former youtube videos was of a guy who had wrapped tinfoil around his male parts and stuck it into an electric socket. No naughty bits showed (less than what you can see in a PG-13 movie) but they've pulled it from the site.

Though I think I would laugh so hard I'd wet myself if the tinfoil video was followed by a Reynold commercial.

Let's say my vid of "Babe" gets tagged as infringing by the group Styx or the owners of the pig movie. Now they are illegally profiting off of my IP, what recourse is there? Sure, the number of people in this situation will be small, but not insignificant.

Everyone seems to want to host/control their own content. Many of them are offering their content for free just to reserve some level of control. If youtube allows them to cut the cost of hosting their own content AND make a profit while doing it why would anyone not allow youtube to host their content?

As youtube starts to focus on increasing the quality of what they stream we could potentially see a new alternative to cable/sat TV and maybe finally get an Ã la carte service we so desperately want!

If I upload my own material to youtube, and youtube puts an ad on top of it, isn't that similar to marking it as their own, (or the advertisers). As the copyright holder, I don't think I want text over writing the video.

Considering the fact that Youtube takes all DMCA violations without investigation how will they handle these new ad requests? I mean will they really investigate if I send them a letter saying I own the rights to CSI and demand they post my ads? I would be pretty annoyed if they bend over backwards to make sure that doesn't happen, while at the same time banning users who posted material that was accidently DMCAed by a major corp. On the other hand if they don't filter these requests it could be pandemonium

I have to say... I think this is a great idea. I post weekly videos to Youtube and every once in a while will put music to them. The last one I put up had an old 80's song in it, and lo and behold, the next day I received a copyright "notice" that gave me 2 options: 1 - do nothing and have an ad to buy the song via iTunes or Amazon placed at the bottom of the vid while the music was playing, or 2 - dispute it. I have to say that I dont care if they want to put ads because I really am using their property without permission and it's a MUCH better option than having the video completely removed (which I have had happen in the past for an image of a product), or having your account closed.

I've been keeping an eye on the search results for YouTube videos silenced by WMG [google.co.uk] from it's original report on an earlier slashdot discussion of 13,600 videos, right now the number is at 294,000 videos and a lot of them have now been removed.

Looks like WMG are losing out on a very BIG advertising revenue stream by removing almost 1/3 million videos, and the number will most likely grow (1/2 million? 1 million?). If they had any intelligence they'd have turned this debacle into a new revenue stream. A lot of the videos silenced/removed have had millions of views, I certainly wouldn't say no to that level of page views if I could make money from it.

That will be almost impossible, as the ads will probably be embedded in the first frames of each video, and it will probably be impossible to "skip" that part. Even if a software could "detect" it, it would involve major video processing per video, nothing that a simple extension would be capable of doing.